Show 29 quoted lines
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> wrote:
> > On 12/08, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> wrote:
> >> > On 12/07, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Convert 'create_simplify()' to use the pathspec struct interface from
> >> >> > using the '_raw' entry in the pathspec.
> >> >>
> >> >> It would be even better to kill this create_simplify() and let
> >> >> simplify_away() handle struct pathspec directly.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is a bug in this code, that might have been found if we
> >> >> simpify_away() handled pathspec directly: the memcmp() in
> >> >> simplify_away() will not play well with :(icase) magic. My bad. If
> >> >> :(icase) is used, the easiest/safe way is simplify nothing. Later on
> >> >> maybe we can teach simplify_away() to do strncasecmp instead. We could
> >> >> ignore exclude patterns there too (although not excluding is not a
> >> >> bug).
> >> >
> >> > So are you implying that the simplify struct needs to be killed? That
> >> > way the pathspec struct itself is being passed around instead?
> >>
> >> Yes. simplify struct was a thing when pathspec was an array of char *.
> >> At this point I think it can retire (when we have time to retire it)
> >
> > Alright, then for now I can leave this change as is and have a follow up
> > series that kills the simplify struct.
>
> Do let me know if you decide to drop it, so I can put it back in my backlog.